On October 17, the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville raised a question of privilege concerning the failure of the Minister of Justice to comply with the provisions of the Firearms Act dealing with the making of regulations.

The hon. member appealed to the Chair to ask the minister when her notice of opinion would be tabled in the House.

Before the Chair was able to return to the House with a ruling, the minister tabled her notice of opinion concerning regulations amending the firearms fees regulations. I refer all hon. members to the Journals entry of Tuesday, October 23, 2001.

Madam Speaker, I have examined the minister's statement and I really see no compelling reason given by the minister for the urgent changes that she made two hours after the terrorists hit the World Trade Center. This appears to have been a political priority, not a public safety priority.

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

October 25, 2001

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Louise Arbour, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of October, 2001, at 3:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a certain bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to continue the debate where my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas left off on Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Costa Rica.

In listening to the debate earlier I felt offended that members of the Canadian Alliance lobbed at the members of NDP that somehow we were nitpicking and attaching our debate to small things, such as defending the rights of workers, whether they were in Costa Rica, Canada or any other country. As the debate continued, the parliamentary secretary wanted to know why the NDP was opposed to helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Presumably he meant Costa Rica.

The NDP is absolutely in favour of helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. In fact, this party has had a very proud and long tradition of promoting international solidarity, economic investment and aid and development. We have pressed the government to meet its commitments through the red book and in other areas over many years.

However the debate today is really about who this trade agreement will help. I would challenge the parliamentary secretary to produce the evidence as to how this particular free trade agreement will help poor people in Costa Rica or, for that matter, workers in Canada.

Like other members in the House, I have also received information from workers and management from Rogers Sugar which is located in my riding of Vancouver East. I want to tell members of the House, particularly the government members, that there is a huge concern about the impact of this trade agreement on Canadian companies and the sugar industry.

In June of this year I met with a joint delegation of labour and management representatives from Rogers Sugar. Anyone who knows about labour management issues will know that it is not usual for labour and management to come together. However in this case it was a joint delegation because the several hundred people who work at the plants as well as the management of Rogers Sugar are very concerned about the impact of this agreement.

In fact when they wrote the Prime Minister to express their concern they received the following response. In a letter dated April 26, the Prime Minister said that in any free trade negotiation it was necessary for each side to consider compromises in the interest of reaching an agreement which was fair overall. In the case of Costa Rica, Canada recognized that the differences in the level of development of our two countries would need to be reflected in the final agreement.

He then went on to say that the agreement negotiated provided opportunities for exporters in both countries to explore new markets, including opportunities for some Canadian sugar exporters to sell to Costa Rica.

This is absolutely contrary to the evidence and information that has come before us. The fact is that if the tariff were eliminated, Canadian refineries would be exposed to competition from Costa Rican refineries without the prospect of better access to that market for our exporters, contrary to what the Prime Minister said.

The reality is there is virtually no market for refined sugar in Costa Rica or elsewhere in central America. Granting duty free entry for refined sugar from Costa Rica and we believe, eventually from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and especially Guatemala, will end up eliminating a significant portion of a long-standing Canadian industry. We have to be incredibly concerned about that.

If we could look at what the NDP has articulated in its position, it is precisely because of this race to the bottom. It is another example of the lowest common denominator approach that opens the door to job flight from countries, such as Canada, where there are tougher, more progressive legislation.

It is not just about protecting jobs in Canada, although that is very important. It is also about protecting and encouraging high quality jobs in other parts of the world. We have heard a lot of debate today in the House about how this agreement will lift people out of poverty. We heard from the Alliance that globalization has moved people out of poverty. We heard that the trickle down theory is working very well.

Again, there is ample evidence to suggest that these trade agreements have done nothing to improve the lives of working people. These trade agreements have done nothing to improve the quality of our environment or the quality of social conditions that exist in many countries.

Members of the NDP take a very principled stand. This is not about being opposed to trade agreements per se on any grounds. It is about being in favour of trade agreements that protect our environment, that protect quality social conditions for people and that enshrine and protect worker rights.

To go back to the situation in Costa Rica, because that is the agreement before us, one of the things we should be concerned about is the development of export processing zones in Costa Rica, of which there are nine. One thing that is taking place, particularly in the textile industry, is that companies increasingly are hiring workers at home where they are not protected by labour laws nor are they covered by social security, holidays or job security.

We have to ask critically whether the agreement actually is helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere or whether it is conferring greater rights for greater profits for large corporations. Basically the workers get left behind at home with absolutely no protection.

There is information on the record, and it is available for any member to see, that private sector employers have ignored the ILO recommendations that workers, particularly in the private sector, have been denied the right to organize. They have been denied the right to basic, safe working conditions. They have been denied the right to decent wages.

It becomes very clear that the trade agreement is not in the interests of poor people in those countries. It is not in the interests of protecting our environment. I feel proud that as an NDP caucus we understand this and stand in solidarity with international labour movements, with the labour movement in Canada and with NGOs that have done analysis on this and have participated in things like the people's summit at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and the people's summit in Vancouver at the APEC conference.

It is through those forums that the issues affecting workers have come to the forefront. As we know, that debate has not taken place in the House. We raise day after day the fact that the summit of the Americas was not brought forward to the House for any kind of democratic vote. These agreements affect all of us. They affect our local communities and the workers in my riding of East Vancouver but the House has not participated in any kind of democratic vote about whether or not we should be adopting the FTAA for example.

The NDP is not nitpicking. The NDP is not opposing the agreement because we are opposed to free trade or any trade agreement. We are opposing this agreement because we see it as nothing more than continuing the sellout of Canada. We see it as a continuation of a policy from the government that actually is abandoning the basic human rights and the basic human dignity of workers in Costa Rica.

I am very glad that the workers I met with from Rogers Sugar understood that they were standing in support of the workers in Costa Rica. They did not see it as just an issue of protecting their jobs and their turf. They understood that this race to the bottom not only affected them but also the workers in those other countries.

I am glad the NDP is opposing this trade agreement. It is a bad trade agreement both for workers in Canada and for workers in those countries.

Geoff ReganParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I listened to her say that we should have democratic votes in the House about these things.

It strikes me that the NDP has refused to recognize democratic votes that have taken place in elections in the past few years. It refuses to recognize that in the last two or three election campaigns the vast majority of Canadians voted for parties that support free trade and the expansion of our ability to trade around the world. This would allow products from other countries to come into our country without tariffs or with lower tariffs so that our consumers can get access to goods and services from around the world at reasonable prices.

It seems strange that a party that talks about its concern for consumers and ordinary people is not interested in ensuring we are able to get goods and services at low prices.

At the same time it surprises me that the NDP refuses to recognize that with this agreement there are side agreements on environment and labour. The two governments involved in the agreement believe environment and labour co-operation should go hand in hand with trade liberalization. That is a fundamental element of Canada's foreign policy.

The environment agreement in this case would commit the parties to provide for high levels of environmental quality and the effective enforcement of environmental laws. It would provide for technical co-operation to strengthen environmental management systems. It would seek to expand public participation in environmental policymaking.

That is important for both countries. It is important to Canada and to Costa Rica that the public is involved in these processes and that they are not just handed down. The people must have a chance to take part in the discussion about the development of these important policies.

It goes without saying that the labour and environment side agreements are important complements to the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement. All I have heard today from members of the NDP is how terrible it is that we are not dealing with the environment. They say that we do not care about the environment or about labour. They seem to deny and ignore that in this case there are agreements on those very things.

Will the hon. member explain to us how the NDP can refuse to accept the decisions of the electorate in democratic votes in Canada's last three elections?

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question but let us not forget our history. In the election of 1988 more Canadians voted against the beginning of the free trade era than voted in favour.

If the hon. member would care to look at the history of his own party he would probably remember that the party of whose government he is a part was opposed to the original free trade agreement. If we want to talk about democratic expression, a majority of Canadians voted for members of parliament and parties that were opposed to that agreement.

Since that time, if we look at information that came out before the summit of the Americas, there has been growing opposition from Canadians to what these trade agreements represent. There is a growing realization and understanding that these trade agreements are nothing more than huge giveaways to multinational corporations that are able to move capital across borders and disregard the rights of workers, the environment or social conditions.

The member says that there are all these sidebar agreements. The sidebar agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. The CCRALC does not oblige a government to enact or maintain labour laws of a high standard. It only requires that a government enforce the labour laws it enacts.

When the minister was in central America earlier this year he was quoted in the local press as promising that Canada would not use environmental and labour legislation as a barrier to trade deals.

We must ask what the government's real agenda is in this regard. Is it to raise the standard of living for people in these countries or is it to confer enormous rights on the corporations and leave people at the mercy of the employers?